0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Particles are never connected. Two things cannot touch. None of Newtons laws about sets of objects require connectivity for this reason.
QuoteLet's set the whole Earth at the shape of spanner.So, the Earth will look like an extended object with all of its mass while the length of each side is 10,000 Km. Based on Newton's Second Law for an Extended Objecthttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Mechanics/n2ext.html"The motion of any real object may involve rotations as well as linear motion, but the motion of the center of mass of the object can be described by an application of Newton's second law in the following form:F = M aYes, the motion of the center of mass will follow that law, just like it says. I never said otherwise.
Let's set the whole Earth at the shape of spanner.So, the Earth will look like an extended object with all of its mass while the length of each side is 10,000 Km. Based on Newton's Second Law for an Extended Objecthttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Mechanics/n2ext.html"The motion of any real object may involve rotations as well as linear motion, but the motion of the center of mass of the object can be described by an application of Newton's second law in the following form:F = M a
All particles on earth are fully connected due to gravity.
So, you agree that the center of mass of any kind of object at any shape (even if it is 20,000 Km spanner) must follow that law.If so, you agree that there is only one center point of mass for any kind of object.
Therefore, there in nothing to disagree.With only one center point of mass there is no way to get any extra thrust.I hope that you agree with that.
Conclusions:I didn't invent those laws.You are more than welcome to call them at any name.
You didn't offer any alternative mathematic calculation in order to reject those laws and support the hypothetical idea of extra thrust due to bulges offset.
Hence, our scientists must look for better explanation why all the planets and moons are drifting outwards.
If I put force on the spanner, or net force on the system of completely disconnected objects, that will move the center of gravity, which is thrust.
I hope that you agree with the following:1. The spanner has a center point of mass.2. If we won't set an external force of the spanner there is no extra thrust.3. In our case the spanner represents the Earth.
If you agree with all the above let's move to the following:You claim that:Quote from: Halc on 16/12/2018 18:12:38If I put force on the spanner, or net force on the system of completely disconnected objects, that will move the center of gravity, which is thrust.
1. Let's use the idea that all the particles on Earth are connected.In this case, we will assume that the tidal is so strong that it coverts totally the shape of the earth from ball shape into spanner. (Instead of just two bulges)So, what?The Earth in a spanner shape has exactly the same center point of mass as the Earth in ball shape (as all the particles are connected).
So, that external force (tidal) didn't change at all the location of the center point of mass (although it changed the earth shape).
Therefore, there is no way to set extra thrust on the moon.
2. Let's assume that the particles on earth aren't connected.So, the tidal is so strong that it split the earth into two totally separated objects.Each object is represented by center point of mass. We can set those two center points of mass exactly where the bulges are located.
In this case I agree that the gravity force between each point to the moon is not equal. and the sum of their gravity force is different from just one central point of mass.However, even in this case, there is no extra thrust.
(Assuming that we can hold those two points of center of mass at a constant distance and offset with regards to the moon, than the moon will orbit around those points without getting any sort of extra thrust.
3. We will split the Earth into infinite separated points of mass while we hold them at the same spot and the same offset from the moon.
Even in this case there is no thrust on the moon. However, the moon will orbit around infinite number of center of mass points instead of only one or two.
Maybe it is my limited understanding, but somehow I really don't see any way to transfer any thrust from the Earth to the moon due to tidal.With your permission, let's move on.
With regards to the SunWhy are we so sure that during all of his life time the Sun had to keep the same orbital radius?
How could it be that all the moons and Planets are drifting outwards, (or inwards based on the tidal idea) while the sun is fixed at the same radius?
How could it be that in one hand our scientists claim that the SMBH increases its mass by eating stars and gas clouds, while on the other hand they don't consider an option that stars must migrate/drift inwards in order to supply the requested food for the SMBH monster?
If the SMBH has 4 x 10^6 sun mass, (while our scientists believe that this mass had been taken from the stars in the galaxy) than somehow 4 x 10^6 stars had to drift inwards.
So why our scientists are so sure that the Sun was always at the same distance from the center of the galaxy???
What makes our star so unique that it had to stay so far away from the monster at the galaxy center?
There is no history we can consult. We seem to be on the road (a clean orbit) still, so that's evidence that we've not left it, because it is hard to get back if you fall off the road, or at least it takes a lot more than 20 orbits. That's pretty strong evidence, but not proof.
The solar system has positive angular momentum (inclination +63°),
Well not at the exact same radius since it is under the effect of all the local stars
Quote from: HalcThe solar system has positive angular momentum (inclination +63°),The Sun has currently positive angular momentum (inclination +63°). In other words, it is moving upwards from the Galactic Disc lane while it orbits around the center of the galaxy.
It is expected that once it gets to the pick it should get down and cross the galactic lane downwards.
Hence, the Sun is Bobbing up and down while it orbits the center of the galaxy.This is not unique for the Sun. Actually all the stars in the galaxy bobbing up/down, in/out or in between.So, how can you call it "clean orbit"?
Do you think that Newton or keler would accept that orbit as a "clean orbit"?
If I understand it correctly, it should move up and down at least four times before it set one complete cycle.Can you please find one planet or moon that is bobbing up and down while it orbits around its host (four times per cycle)?
How can you ignore that incredible positive angular momentum???
Actually you have already offered the answer for that bobbing activity"Quote from: Halc on 17/12/2018 21:18:16Well not at the exact same radius since it is under the effect of all the local starsSo, you even claim that "it is under the effect of all the local stars".
The Earth works under the gravity of the Sun (While it ignore the gravity of the center of the galaxy, and so on.)
So, why the Sun doesn't orbit under the effect of all the local stars???
In other words, what is the real host of the Sun?
If the Sun goes up and down, could it be that it actually orbits around some sort of a center of mass which is the equivalent center due to all the stars/SMBH in the galaxy?
So, could it be that it is not directly orbits around the galaxy, but it orbits around a local center of mass while this local center of mass orbits around the galaxy.
It is the same phenomenon as the Moon orbits around the Sun (12 times per cycle).If we shut down the light at the Earth, we might see that the moon orbits around the Sun while it's bobbing inwards and outwards. (As the Moon orbits almost horizontally to the earth/sun disc).
So, why do we reject the idea that the bobbing activity shows clearly that the Sun doesn't orbit directly around the center of the galaxy, but around some local center of mass which is under direct "effect of all the local stars"?
If you don't agree:Would you kindly show the formula of gravity which can support that strange bobbing activity or "clean orbit" of the Sun?
Prove your hypothetical idea for that bobbing activity by real mathematics based only on Newton and kepler.
In my opinion, this bobbing activity is the smoking gun which we are looking for.
Once we agree that the Sun orbits around a local center of mass (Which is "under the effect of all the local stars" - as the Moon/sun orbit), we have got the answer for the Spiral galaxy enigma.
QuoteSo, could it be that it is not directly orbits around the galaxy, but it orbits around a local center of mass while this local center of mass orbits around the galaxy.Exactly.
Quote from: Halc on 18/12/2018 15:10:48QuoteSo, could it be that it is not directly orbits around the galaxy, but it orbits around a local center of mass while this local center of mass orbits around the galaxy.Exactly.WowIf we agree that the sun orbits around a local center of mass while this local center of mass orbits around the galaxy, than we have to agree that all the stars in the spiral galaxy has a similar orbital motion.
Based on that, now we can get better understanding about the Spiral galaxy.For example - When we look at the nearby stars, we might see that each one is moving at a different direction and velocity.
We might think that very soon they all will get out from the spiral arm.
This is incorrect. all the nearby stars will stay with us. Each one of them orbits around it's unique center of mass, while the center of mass is moving with the arm. and that center of mass is a direct product of all the other nearby stars...
Let's look at S2.We think that it orbits around the SMBH. That is big mistake.If we look carefully, we also might find that it's orbital cycle isn't clean.In other words, it also orbit around some center of mass with this center of mass orbits around the SMBH.
This is a very important issue.Let's take the example of the Moon/sun orbital cycle.If we ignore the earth, than just by monitoring the orbital cycle of the moon and its mass estimated, we might think that the Sun mass is very low.So, we can't really extract the real mass of the sun directly from the moon orbit.
We must first find the mass of the earth, and then extract the Sun mass.In the same token, if we want to extract the real mass of the SMBH we must first find the estimated mass of the S2 center of mass point and based on that data we can extract the real value of the SMBH.We might find that the mass of the SMBH is significantly higher than our faulty calculation.Do you agree with that?
Orbital speed is a function of 'reduced mass', which for any relationship except a binary star, is approximated by the mass of the primary.V = √(Gμ/R) where G is the gravitationl constant, μ is the reduced mass of the pair of objects, and R is the radius.Reduced mass μ for two objects is: μ = (m1-1 + m2-1)-1 which is pretty much the mass of the sun for Earth's orbit, and SGr-A (plus a couple hundred dark objects) for S2. That means that the moon would orbit at about the same speed as Earth if it was by itself, and S2 would orbit at the same speed even if it was the only visible part of some larger object that it orbited. None of these objects have enough mass to affect their respective reduced masses.
However, with regards to the SMBH:Why do we ignore the accretion disc?Based on our measurements, the velocity of the plasma in that disc is 0.3 c (speed of light)If we know the radius of the accretion disc (at the verified velocity), we can easily extract the real mass of the SMBH.So, why do we insist on S2 which doesn't have a clean orbit instead of the accretion disc which has a perfect cycle orbit?
V = √(Gμ/R) where G is the gravitationl constant, μ is the reduced mass of the pair of objects, and R is the radius.
There is a lot of research going into dark matter, and these sorts of things help them estimate the MACHO component of dark matter (things that don't show light like Mars).
As you have mentioned that issue - Dark MatterWhy Newton didn't add that brilliant idea of dark matter in his formulas?Why he didn't say that any orbital system is based on dark matter?
Our science communities try to prove their hypothetical ideas by using Newton laws. As they have failed to explain the orbital velocity of our Sun, they came with this idea.
Now they even try to set more effort in order to show that this none realistic idea is realistic.Let me give you an example -Let's assume that we want to swim in a pool without water.So, I will tell you that there is water, but the water is dark water.You can't see it, you can't feel it, you can't smell it or drink it, but it is there because I said that it there. Would you believe me???
So, this is my personal opinion:Dark matter is a solid proof for the failure of our scientists to show how spiral galaxy really works.As they have failed to understand the real impact of none "clean orbit", as they have failed to understand the real impact of the Earth/moon "Drifting outwards", as they have failed to understand the real impact of the Ultra high magnetic power around the accretion disc, they couldn't explain how the gravity really works in Spiral galaxy.
I can do it.I can explain how the whole universe works without any need for dark matter, for dark energy and for any sort of dark magic.
Based on Newton law I can easily explain:How spiral galaxy really works?Why there are spiral arms in spiral galaxy?Why the stars in spiral arms have almost constant orbital velocity at any radius?Why we see that all the far end galaxies are moving away from us at almost the speed of light, while our observable universe seems to be full with matter.If we will come back 100,000 billion years (or even 10^Billion years) from now, we will see a similar universe with same density and almost the same numbers of galaxies per observable universe. We might not find our solar system, but there will be many similar. Again - no need for dark matter or dark energy - just Newton law and simple common sense.
However, in order to do it I need the following basic understanding:1. "Drifting" outwards It's very difficult to verify a "drifting" outwards of few cm per cycle while the orbital radius is 1 Arc.
However, all the objects (assuming that they are far enough) are drifting outwards from their host. That is correct for all the objects including: Moons, planets, stars... There is no need for tidal support to explain this Phenomenon.
Therefore, any orbital cycle is by definition spiral shape cycle. So, even if it drifts 1 micro meter each cycle, it is still has spiral orbital shape.
2. Clean orbital cycle.All the orbital cycles in the Universe must be clean. There is no room in our universe for none clean cycle (unless there is an interruption.)
So, the Sun must set a very clean orbital cycle around its center of mass.
3. The magnetic power around the accretion disc, push any matter upwards (or downwards) at a speed of 0.8 c (speed of light) that prevents from any gas cloud, star or even atom to drift inwards in order to be eaten by the SMBH monster.
That's all I need.
Based on those three elements, I can easily explain how our universe works without any sort of dark magic.If you agree I will show how it works.
Newton didn't need to. His formulas do not apply only to matter that emits light. Jupiter will orbit the future white dwarf that the sun will become at the same radius as the black dwarf it will be even later on. The latter is dark matter.
Therefore, we have two options:1. Continue to hold our none realistic ideas about spiral galaxies and continue to look for that unrealistic dark matter.2. Open our mind to different ideas which can perfectly explain the galaxy rotation problem and all the other unsolved issues without any need to dark matter.
So is there a model supplied by such open-minded thinking? Trust me, such a thing would be warmly greeted if it worked.